M Night Shyamalan is someone who disappointed many. Be it for his rise with his earlier work (The Sixth Sense, Signs) and his abrupt fall with his latter (all films aside from Unbreakable), or for his shockingly shoddy, racist and all around uninteresting adaptation of the much loved series- Avatar: The Last Airbender/Legend of Ang. This film was an insult to the heartfelt and awe-inspiring, anime inspired original show, which was the story of a young boy dealing with the responsibilities of being the Avatar. Within the world created there are four nations, each being represented by what elements said nation can bend. I imagine if you're reading this article, then you already know this, but I'm just explaining it to the very confused James Cameron fans who've stumbled down the Rabbit Hole and discovered a far superior "Avatar". As much as I'd love to (and probably will in the near future) I'm not here to criticize M Night Shyamalan's choices (nor those of James Cameron, who headed the spectacularly boring film of a similar title) but rather ask, should we try again? If we are too do so, precautions need to be taken. Such as-
1. A racially diverse cast!
(Yeah... That happened.)
Why is it that Hollywood feels the need to make Asian characters white? I mean, in the show Sokka and Katara were darker skinned than the villains... While in the movie, the fire Nation are played by mostly Indians. Is that overt racism from the Indian director? Or is M Night Shyamalan just an idiot?
Probably the Latter. Whoever is in charge of casting this hypothetical film needs to do their casting right. That means
Japanese actors for the fire nation, not Indian.
2. Pick a director with experience of a Saga.
Yeah, it's an obvious pick, and the Hobbit trilogy didn't live up to it's predecessor, but the thematic structure of the Avatar series is similar to The Lord of The Rings. You have a small character saddled with an immense power and responsibility - Ang/Frodo.
His band of misfit friends - The Fellowship of The Ring/Team Avatar.
The evil lord taking over the world who the main character doesn't meet until the third installment- Sauron/Fire Lord Ozai (I realize Frodo doesn't really meet Sauron but It could be argued that when he is possessed by the ring towards the end, he is encountering Sauron).
And finally, the conflicted character who is unsure where his allegiance lies - Zuko/Smegol.
There are elements of the story which are similar also. The main characters traveling for the entire series, the conflicting nations, the dark lord trying to rule all, the main characters banding together to bring down the dark lord, etc. This could be broken down to the myth of originality and the fact that all Art is derivative, but I do think Peter Jackson could do this due to his experience, which brings me onto my next point.
3. You can split the books into multiple movies!
.
(You get permission to do this!)
If Peter Jackson is to direct these films, then he can do something he is now somewhat famous for.
Yeah, the Hobbit trilogy was unneeded. It was overly long and around two hours of it felt like filler. But, oddly enough, one of the main problems with the Avatar movie was trying to squeeze six and a half hours of information into an hour and a half. The series could work as two parts for each book. Making for a more accurate film series in both emotion and events.
4. Develop your characters!
Another one of the main problems with the film was the under-development of its characters. It was an adaptation of a show that featured some of the greatest characters in children's television. Make Katara motherly, make Sokka funny and sarcastic, make Aang lovable and childish, make Zuko arrogant and angry and for god's sake, make Iroh the charming tea-lover he should be! And then build upon these characters throughout the films! Much like the television show.
Does Avatar need a film adaptation? No. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see one. It doesn't need one, but it deserves a good one. Thanks for reading - Caped Cru-Vader